[Pages S4705-S4709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 415 to Amendment No. 410

(Purpose: To ensure that a migratory birds hunting season will not be
canceled or interrupted, and that commercial, recreational, or
subsistence activities related to hunting, fishing, or camping will not
be canceled or interrupted)

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, at this time, I rise to offer an amendment
with my friend, Senator Stevens of Alaska, and also Senator Pressler,
Senator Wellstone, and Senator Cochran. This amendment would ensure
that the 45-day suspension of a significant rule does not include the
regulations opening duck hunting season. The amendment I am offering at
this time was adopted by the Governmental Affairs Committee when it
considered S. 219, but it was not included in the Nickles-Reid
substitute.
The substitute would suspend for 45 days any significant rule to give
Congress time to review the regulation. The annual rule regulating duck
hunting, which has a direct effect on the economy of $686 million
annually, would be considered a significant rule. The effect of this
45-day suspension on the duck hunting season would be most severe. The
Fish and Wildlife Service is required by law to issue regulations each
year to open and close the duck hunting season. Each year, in late
July, after the young birds are large enough to be counted, the Fish
and Wildlife Service then gathers information about the various duck
populations. They then have roughly 2 months to draft and finalize the
duck hunting regulations, which are typically issued 2 or 3 days before
the hunting season begins.
Because these regulations are significant regulations, they would be
suspended for 45 days, which would cut a month and a half from the duck
hunting season. I do not believe this effect on duck hunting is
necessary or useful. It is counterproductive, and it may be a classic
case of unintended consequences.
Our amendment today simply says that for the purposes of the Nickles-
Reid substitute, duck hunting regulations would not be considered
significant and, therefore, would not be suspended for 45 days. The
duck hunting rule, like all other rules under the Nickles-Reid
substitute, would still be reported to Congress.
Mr. President, I do not think that in the name of regulatory reform,
we should eliminate 45 days of the duck hunting season. I believe our
amendment is simple and it is straightforward. I thank my colleagues
for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
I sincerely appreciate the help and the strong support of my good
friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, who has worked with
us very carefully to develop this amendment as it is.
Mr. President, I have not actually sent my amendment to the desk. I
send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Cochran,
proposes an amendment numbered 415 to amendment No. 410.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 13, beginning on line 12, strike all through line 8
on page 14 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``(2) Significant Rule.--The term ``significant rule''--
(A) means any final rule, issued after November 9, 1994,
that the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the office of Management and Budget
finds--
(i) has an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities;
[[Page S4706]] (ii) creates a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by
another agency;
(iii) materially alters the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(iv) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in Executive Order 12866.
(B) does not include any agency action that establishes,
modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for
a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity relating
to hunting, fishing, or camping.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Pryor.
We are delighted Senator Pressler and several others on the committee
have joined now.
The amendment, I think, addresses concerns many others have had
concerning the potential impact this amendment would have on hunting,
camping, or fishing activities. In Alaska, those activities are of
major importance to our daily life.
The amendment will make it clear now that regulatory actions to open,
close, or manage commercial, recreational, and subsistence hunting,
fishing, and camping activities will not be included under the
definition of ``significant rule.''
As an example, let me point out to the Senate that over 54 percent of
all the fish that are caught commercially in waters off the United
States are caught off my State of Alaska. These fisheries are some of
the world's largest and they certainly are the healthiest in all the
world because of our proper fisheries management concepts.
In some cases, the delay of even 24 hours in closing a fishery could
have tremendously detrimental impacts on the health of the fish
resource. Yet the action to close the fishery could be found to have an
adverse effect on a sector of the economy, namely the fishing vessels
that might have to stop fishing.
We cannot afford to risk the long-term health of our fisheries if
someone could successfully argue that closing of a fishery or
restriction on the use of certain gear in an area is a significant rule
that must be delayed for 45 days under this bill.
This is not hypothetical. There are people that will do just that.
Just last month, the Secretary of Commerce, based on a recommendation
from our North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, issued an
emergency order to shut down scallop fishing in Federal waters off
Alaska.
That is a major fishery, but it had to be done. The emergency order
was necessary because one boat, just one boat--it was called Mr. Big,
incidentally--found a loophole in the law that allowed it to take more
scallops than the State of Alaska had allowed all boats of the fleet to
take for the whole season.
I do hope Members here will join in supporting this amendment
unanimously. It is essential to duck hunters. I hope we are all duck
hunters--up our way, we are all duck hunters. And I do hope people
understand it means a great deal to some of the people who rely on
subsistence hunting and fishing in my State.
It is an essential amendment. It is one I tried to offer in
committee, and some people did not understand it. I am happy to see
that now they do.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to clarify a couple of things. We
have been through this. I think it is satisfactory.
I want to be sure the definition that was made in the committee on
the previous amendment was something that could not be expanded into
things never intended as far as the hunting and routine rules and
regulations and others that are done on an annual basis. I think this
just changes the definition of what is considered a significant rule.
In effect, what it does by changing the designation a little bit, as I
understand it, is permit all the previous rules, regulations, and
procedures to continue as they have in the past so they will not be cut
out.
Is that correct?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it really,
from my perspective, looks at the management tools of the State, and
Federal fish and game management agencies in particular--there are
others involved also--and says that they can continue their management
practices that are designed to protect the resource base. Some open,
some close, some limit, some alter, some add, and some subtract. But
they are done on a basis of public knowledge. But the public knowledge
is of the regulations that give them the opportunity to step in and
issue an emergency regulation to take care of a situation or to change
a pattern of, say, hunting in order to protect the species. I think
that is in the public interest. That is what we intended all along.
This is excepted from the 45 days.
The Senator referred to the prior bill--not Senator Pryor's bill but
the former bill. I think the Senator may be referring to an amendment
that I offered because of the form of that bill to deal with specific
circumstances in Alaska. I do not have to offer that amendment because
this is a 45-day general moratorium now, and those amendments that I
talked about in committee are in fact covered under this type of
general regulation now in terms of the significant-rule concept.
Mr. GLENN. As I understood it from the explanation given earlier this
afternoon, I understood that this does not provide any new exemptions
for additional hunting or additional opening up of tracts or anything
that is not there right now.
Mr. STEVENS. It could. I just gave an example of one. Just this last
month the Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation closing the scallop
fishery because an emergency developed. That is the kind of thing that
cannot wait 45 days. That is a type of action that has been taken care
of in the process of protecting our migratory waterfowl. Ducks
Unlimited comes in with a study and says, ``Look, you should change
this anyway. You should open that flyway. You should change that
season.'' They will come in for some emergency modifications during the
period for hunting season. This says that the Fish and Wildlife Service
are to know to go ahead. That is what you are supposed to do; no delay
on those items of the kind we have mentioned. Subsection B and
subsection A carry some specific concepts about what has to be
affected.
Mr. GLENN. I certainly have no objection to that because that
provides regulations in the same way it has been done for a long time.
It does not really provide any new escape hatch for anybody, as I
understand it. So I think that would be acceptable on our side.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on this floor and in the Senate as a
whole, there have been a lot of attacks on environmental regulations.
That seems to be the way to go these days. But I think the Senator from
Alaska gave a very powerful talk on illustrating why these regulations
are necessary. Indeed, he felt so strongly that he did not want--I
agree with him--these regulations that apply to fishing, hunting, and
camping to be held up for 45 days. In his powerful statement, the
Senator from Alaska illustrated that in some cases these regulations
have to go into effect immediately.
So I hope that rebuts some of the feeling around this floor that all
environmental regulations are useless and that we ought to attack them,
which is, unfortunately, too often said around here. I am not saying
necessarily right here on the floor. I am talking about in the
committees, in the conversations. Thank goodness we have some of these
environmental regulations.
So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Alaska. Somebody can
contradict me, but there are certain regulations under this bill we are
dealing with that are held up for 45 days. Under this category they
fall under ``significant regulations.'' But what the Senator from
Alaska has done is he has said that significant regulations or delay
for 45 days does not apply to this category of regulation that he has
defined; namely, those that establish, modify, open, close, or conduct
regulatory programs for commercial, recreational, or subsistence
activities relating to hunting, fishing, or camping.
So I think it makes sense. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska and
hope he will be a strong fighter for environmental regulations here on
the floor in the future.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I seldom get personal on the floor, but I
recall standing behind my friend 45 years
[[Page S4707]] ago when we entered law school. And we signed into the
same law school, but I do not think we have agreed in the 45 years
since. I am delighted we have once, despite our prior disagreements. It
is nice to have one time for agreement. There are some environmental
regulations that are useless. We should burn the paper they are on. But
this is not one of them.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am happy to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). Is there further debate?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment. I
compliment my friends and colleagues, Senator Pryor from Arkansas and
Senator Stevens, and I compliment Senator Stevens for his leadership. I
think it is a good amendment. It further clarifies that what we are
doing in this bill in no way would have any harmful impact whatsoever
on hunting and fishing and delay those activities in any way
whatsoever.
I urge its adoption.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just one
moment, I failed to thank my good friend John Roots on our behalf, who
has worked so hard on this staff and Senator Pryor's staff. I thank him
very much.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I may, I do not want to spoil the
opportunity to pass this amendment because I think it is going to be
accepted by everyone. So I will sit down. I could not help but catch it
when my good friend and colleague from Alaska was talking about his
good friend and our colleague from Rhode Island when he referred to
their ``prior disagreements.'' I am very hopeful that they will just
use ``former disagreements.'' I think that would be a little more
helpful here. [Laughter.]
Mr. President, I thank the managers. I thank them for the support for
this amendment. I hope it will be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
The amendment (No. 415) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 413, As Modified

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send to the desk technical amendments.
This changes a couple of letters and numerals. They are technical
corrections to amendment No. 413 that were made earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
The amendment (No. 413), as modified, is as follows:

On page 2, strike lines 6 through 20, and insert in lieu
thereof and renumber accordingly:
``(1) Reporting to Congress and the Comptroller General.--
(A) Before a rule can take effect as a final rule, the
Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report
containing--
(i) a copy of the rule;
(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule; and
(iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.
(B) The Federal agency promulgating the rule shall make
available to each House of Congress and the Comptroller
General, upon request:
(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the
rule, if any;
(ii) the agency's actions relevant to section 603, section
604, section 605, section 607, and section 609 of P.L. 96-
354;
(iii) the agency's actions relevant to Title II, section
202, section 203, section 204, and section 205 of P.L. 104-4;
and
(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under
any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders, such as
Executive Order 12866.
(C) Upon receipt, each House shall provide copies to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of each committee with
jurisdiction.
(2) Reporting by the comptroller general.--
(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each
significant rule to the committees of jurisdiction to each
House of the Congress by the end of 12 calendar days after
the submission or publication date as provided in section
4(b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall include
an assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural
steps required by subsection B(i) through (iv).
(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller
General's report under subsection (2)(A) of this section.''
On page 14, at the beginning of line 5, insert ``section
3(a)(1)-(2) and '', and on line 5 strike ``3(a)(2)'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``3(a)(3)''.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Governmental Affairs Committee's
unanimous bipartisan regulatory reform bill has a legislative veto of
major rules in it. Major rules. I believe this is a good proposal,
because there are anywhere from between 700 to 900, some estimates have
gone as high as 1,000, ``major'' or ``significant'' rules issued each
year. And that word ``significant'' means something special, because
these are the rules that have an annual impact on the economy of $100
million per year or more, or otherwise have a significant impact on the
economy or a region of the country, or other important effect.
These 700 to 900 major rules or regulations are the big rules out of
the approximately 4,000 rules that are issued every year--4,000. One
estimate today when we were discussing another bill was that these
rules in some years run as high as 4,800 to 5,000.
Let us say an average of 4,000 rules are issued each year by Federal
agencies. A legislative veto, where we call rules back up or have the
potential for calling them back up for review, for all 4,000 rules, I
think, is just too much. What kind of regulatory overload are we
putting on the Congress? Will we be so overloaded in these rules that
we will not be able to adequately consider ones that we should
consider?
It is the major rules that we care about, the ones that are
significant. These are the big rules that implement the primary
policies and requirements of our laws on public health and safety, on
environmental protection, economic policy, communications, farm policy,
and all the rest.
We have a hard enough time getting our work done the way things are.
I do not think we should create an almost automatic process to bring up
every rule under the Sun.
Let me give some examples. Just from yesterday's Federal Register, I
see rules on drawbridge closings, rules on safety zones in New Jersey's
Metedeconk River, Federal prison work compensation program rules,
Justice Department claims settlement rules, FAA--the Federal Aviation
Administration--class D airspace rules.
And I would say from some personal experience, FAA just a short time
ago redid all the airspace designations, A, B, C, D, and F, right on
down the line, to show what areas planes can fly into and out of
without radios, being on instrument control, visual flight rules, and
so on. These kind of rules are still being flushed out and changed a
bit. So one of the things in the Federal Register is for class D
airspace rules.
There is the postsecondary education ``borrower defenses''
regulations.
Let us not forget that the reason we have agencies and an open
``notice and comment'' administrative process is so that Government can
get its work done in a fair and orderly and semiefficient process. At
least, that is the goal.
We need regulatory reform. And I am first to support regulatory
reform. We worked on it for several years in the Governmental Affairs
Committee. So we know we need regulatory reform, and I am all for it. I
have been saying that for some time. But we do not need to create more
gridlock by trying to run, or have the potential of running, 4,000
rules through Congress each year. That is a bottleneck that we just do
not need.
We are trying to make Government work better, not grind to a complete
halt.
So I think we need to keep the legislative veto focused on the big
rules that really matter, that really mean something, ones that we
should be addressing.
The amendment I was going to submit limits the legislative veto to
significant rules--just significant rules,
[[Page S4708]] not all the smaller rules, the significant ones--that
fit the definition that I gave a moment ago. Again, this matches the
scope of the provision we passed in the Governmental Affairs Committee
by a vote of 15 to 0--eight Republicans and seven Democrats.
The amendment that I was planning to submit would make the following
changes to the Nickles-Reid substitute:
One, the amendment would insert the word ``significant'' into the
substitute at three places--in sections 3(a)(1)(A), 3(b), and 3(d)(1).
With this change, the congressional hold-over and process covers
``significant rules'' instead of all ``rules.''
No. 2, the amendment would have stricken one subsection, section
3(a)(3). This would have deleted the paragraph relating to effective
date for other rules which refers to the submission of nonsignificant
rules to Congress for review.
Again, the single purpose of this amendment would have been making
the legislative veto process apply to significant rules. This is what
the Governmental Affairs Committee supports unanimously, and I think it
makes good sense.
The alternative, congressional review of potentially all 4,000 rules
issued each year, makes little sense to me at all.
Mr. President, I will not submit this amendment. I did want to
address it, but I will not submit it because I know from discussions
with the floor leaders that we are not going to get this adopted. The
votes are there to defeat this.
So I would rather not have a vote on it now. I think the best thing
to do is not submit it, but talk a little bit about it and let people
know how important I think it is and, hopefully, out of the conference
process with the House, we might be able to address this problem.
But let me just say a couple more things. Four thousand rules could
be sent to Congress and parceled out to appropriate committees--just
think of that--4,000 rules. That would be the potential. I am not
saying all 4,000 rules are going to be called up every time. But let me
say this: For each rule, you sure are going to have some lobbyists out
there interested in that rule. We are going to have lobbyists coming
out of the woodwork to lobby one or more Members to move a resolution
of disapproval through the appropriate committee. That can be done
through committee. So these lobbyists would be trying to get Members to
move that resolution of disapproval.
If the committee does not act within 20 days, the lobbyists will work
to get 30 Members to sign a petition of discharge or will pressure the
majority and minority leaders to discharge the committee.
So the lobbyists and special interests will have special ways of
doing this, first with committee members. If that does not work, then
they will try for the majority or minority leaders, or within 20 days
they can do the 30-Members approach of signing a petition to have that
particular rule brought up for reconsideration.
If the committee reports out a resolution of disapproval or the
committee is discharged, the disapproval of the rule will be the
subject of lobbying by those parties affected. All this could happen;
the potential is there for it to happen up to 4,000 times a year.
If we think the demands for lobby reform have been great before, you
just wait until the public sees the lobbying feeding frenzy, like
piranhas, looking at this legislation, and the potential for redoing
legislation that they may have just lost a point on in the recent past
when the original legislation was passed.
So that kind of a lobbying feeding frenzy could take place after we
provide expedited procedures for congressional review of all these
rules.
That might just be for starters. Consider what will happen if we pass
a controversial bill that produces significant political argument. All
these things are not bound up just in money. Significant rules can have
a basis other than money.
Think of this one: We pass a controversial bill that produces
significant political argument--let us take a hot button item like
abortion. We know what happens every time that issue comes up in the
Congress. When we have to debate abortion legislation, every
regulation, every rule, no matter how minor, will have a whole string
of Senators and lobbyists and outside groups who will want to bring
that regulation back to the floor, not necessarily because they think
the regulation does not reflect congressional intent--it may be perfect
and may have passed with a majority and have expressed congressional
intent perfectly. Because what they want under our expedited procedures
is to spend 10 hours in political and ideological argument, regardless
of the original bill that might have just passed. So we are opening all
of that up.
I had hoped to close some of that up by designating just the
significant rules for reconsideration.
When we open up this additional time under our expedited procedures
to spend extra hours, the 10 hours in political or ideological
argument, about something that just passed--and I used the example of
abortion because we all know how impassioned the pleas get around here
and how emotional that issue is, think of what happens if we pass
something in that regard and we are out here with the agencies doing
rules and regulations to back up what the Congress just passed. Then we
find that once the rules and regulations are written, do we think that
the lobbying groups will not immediately come back up and do everything
they possibly can do to get that back on the floor again for additional
discussion? You can bet they will.
Is that what we want? Do we want to provide a forum for continually
revisiting issues that have been settled by a vote because a vocal and
determined minority will now have the review of regulation by Congress
as a convenient trigger for such debate?
Well, I know when to put amendments in, I hope, and I know when the
amendments are not worthy to be put in because they are just going to
be voted down. I think the second is the situation I find myself in
right now.
I think this would be better legislation if we had in there the
amendment I was going to propose. But since we will not have it in
there, I just want everyone to know that I will be voting for the
legislative veto, but with my fingers crossed that we do not wind up
creating a real gridlock in legislative reconsideration of legislation
just passed for which the rules and regulations are being written.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 412, as Modified, to Amendment No. 410

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a copy of amendment No.
412, which has already been adopted, and I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be modified as indicated on this document that I am
sending to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have been working with my friend and
colleague, Senator Levin, as well as Senator Byrd from West Virginia.
We have no objection to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
On page 9, line 2, strike everything after ``discharged''
through the period on line 6 and insert the following: ``from
further consideration of such resolution in the Senate upon a
petition supported in writing by 30 Members of the Senate,
and in the House upon a petition supported in writing by one-
fourth of the Members duly sworn and chosen or by motion of
the Speaker supported by the Minority Leader, and such
resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the
House involved.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator
from Oklahoma, and I particularly thank Senator Byrd for pointing out
to us the problem which could have been raised unintentionally by that
amendment.

Amendment No. 416 to Amendment No. 410

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 416 to amendment No. 410.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S4709]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 14, strike lines 3 through 7, and insert in lieu
thereof:

``SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

No determinationa, finding, action, or omission under this
Act shall be subject to judicial review.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the issue of
judicial review. It has been agreed to by the managers of the bill, and
I thank them for their cooperation and support.
I want to thank the Senator from Ohio also for the tremendous work
that he has put in on this amendment and also on the entire bill. I
will have something more to say about his comments relative to which
rules should be subject to legislative review, because I happen to
agree with his comments a few moments ago.
The purpose of this amendment, which I understand has been agreed to
by the managers of the bill, is to be more precise on the question of
judicial review. The substitute that is before us in two sections
specifies that they are not subject to judicial review, and the problem
is that there could be an ambiguity raised unintentionally about the
reviewability then of other sections which do not have that language.
So the concern that some of us have is the implication relative to
other sections of the bill by the specific language in two sections of
the bill.
My amendment states that no determination, finding, action or
omission under this act shall be subject to judicial review, which
clarifies the judicial nonreviewability of this act. I understand that
this has been cleared by the managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Is there further debate on the
amendment of the Senator from Michigan?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Michigan. We have no objection to this amendment. This amendment
precludes judicial review of determinations, findings, actions, or
omissions with respect to this act. However, judicial review of
regulations not disproved by Congress is not affected by this act. Of
course, it is expected that the courts will give affect to any
disapproval of the regulation.
Moreover, instructions to the courts contained in the act, such as
section 3(g) regarding inferences not to be drawn from this inaction
are neither determinations, findings, actions or omissions, within the
meaning of the amendment; and therefore courts are expected to accept
such direction from the Congress. Therefore, we have no objection to
this amendment.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to be a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 416) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 414, as Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as to amendment No. 414, which was
previously accepted, I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Page 5 of amendment No. 414 is modified as follows:
(2) Final agency action.--The term ``final agency action''
means agency action with respect to which all available
administrative remedies have been exhausted.
(3) Term grazing permit.--The term ``term grazing permit''
means a term grazing permit or grazing agreement issued by
the Secretary under section 402 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752), section 19 of
the Act entitled ``An Act to facilitate and simplify the work
of the Forest Service, and for other purposes'', approved
April 24, 1950 (commonly known as the ``Granger-Thye Act'')
(16 U.S.C. 580l), or other law.

SEC. 03. ISSUANCE OF NEW TERM GRAZING PERMITS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, regulation, policy, court order, or court sanctioned
settlement agreement, the Secretary shall issue a new term
grazing permit without regard to whether the analysis
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws has been
completed, or final agency action respecting the analysis has
been taken--
(1) to the holder of an expiring term grazing permit; or

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
request of the Senator from Iowa?
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

____________________